I was going to say that this sounds like a Christian text in a Semitic language, so probably liturgic Aramaic, i.e. Syriac. Since I was beaten to it, I should come up with something else for sports, but they seem to know what they’re talking about.

I agree it’s probably Syriac. I hear what sounds like shmayyaa (heaven) twice (though I may of course just be mis-parsing the phonetic stream), besides the Aalahaa and saTaana. As for an Iraqi accent, all I can really tell is that the speaker often has dark, velarised /l/s (but notably, not in Aalahaa: the opposite of most Arabic dialects, where Allaah universally has emphatic /l/ but otherwise, most dialects don’t except for Iraqi and Gulf dialects).

“Emphatic” when used to describe Semitic and some other Afroasiatic languages refers to consonants with a secondary guttural articulation. It can be glottalisation as in Ethiopian Semitic languages (cf. their ejectives) or the combined velar-pharyngeal secondary articulation of Arabic. For /l/, it gives the “dark” sound of most English varieties when it is pronounced syllable- or word-finally. So that’s basically the meaning of “emphatic” here. “Liquid” is just the general category of sonorant sounds in which the airflow in the mouth is shaped but not obstructed, excluding the semivowels, so [R], [r] and [l], to give the main representatives of the class.

““Emphatic” when used to describe Semitic and some other Afroasiatic languages refers to consonants with a secondary guttural articulation. It can be glottalisation as in Ethiopian Semitic languages (cf. their ejectives) or the combined velar-pharyngeal secondary articulation of Arabic.”

Technically the way I perceive ‘emphatic’ consonants in different varieties of Arabic very differently. For most varieties there’s an audible tension but for Tunisian Arabic the “emphatic” consonants, if anything, sound less emphatic then the unmarked consonants. I’d almost call them ‘smooth’ consonants. Just my perception.